21–30 of 204 posts
Why is blatant union suppression like this even allowed?
First Amendment.
(To be clear, this is a terrible site. But as long as it isn’t threatening or lying, I don’t see why the government should be able to suppress it.)
I like how the main objection would be instantly nullified if Amazon paid their workers more. Do you think a union would be able to negotiate for more than $500 of extra compensation?
I honestly am skeptical. AMZN already pays more than other small businesses and even medium/large businesses. It doesn't make money by paying its workers less - it makes money with efficiency and volume. Alabama is a right-to-work state. My understanding is that it would be completely legal for Amazon to hire new employees the second someone doesn't show up because of a strike, so I'm not sure their leverage. These w…
This is another reminder that we have some of the negative aspects of a cyberpunk future without the cool empowering hacking parts. I wonder about the sort of person who would design such a website. Surely you'd have to be dead inside to create such an abomination, even if it's just a job? I am not trying to be hyperbolic here.
I noticed on other Squarespace sites that second comment is usually just the domain minus the TLD. I wonder if "cranberry groundhog" means anything in particular.
Edit: Guess it's autogenerated? https://cranberry-groundhog-8agy.squarespace.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're asserting causality based on very few data points. The US auto industry is still very union-based, and beyond the occasional bailout, seems to be doing well. Moreover, plenty of industries that didn't become dominated by unions also became uncompetitive. You say that "those working for the media are all unionized" but I have no idea what you're talking about. Citation? Unionization does not cure bad management…
I cannot prove causality, but I think common sense dictates here. Everything we know about economics tells us that inhibiting contract liberty in the way that labor laws do in order to give unions monopolistic control over the negotiating power of a company's work force will be economically harmful and an objective review of US economic history validates that. >>The US auto industry is still very union-based, and bey…
The thing I don’t understand about your argument is that you say that giving “monopolistic control over the negotiating power of a company's work force will be economically harmful”. But companies already have monopolistic (well, monopsonistic) control over their workforce. So why is this an acceptable status quo?
Amazon warehouses are one of the few reasons, I think we can all agree, that a union has a place. There is the argument to be made that if someone doesn't like the job, go elsewhere, it's the free market. True, but I see a lot of these fulfillment centers in small towns. They become a major employer, sometimes eclipsing even the local Walmart. It's a place where jobs are hard to come by, so maybe Amazon offers someth…
If you make it illegal to provide bad jobs, those jobs will not be substituted one-for-one for good jobs. That's not how an economy works. You're only hurting low-skilled workers by mandating higher minimum work standards.
Responding to below:
Yes, every so-called labor protection for adults, except protection against contract fraud, should be abolished, for exactly that reason.
Even child labor laws only became practical when per capita GDP reached a level where prohibiting child labor wouldn't lead to an increase in people dying from privation. Child labor is also very different than most types of labor, in involving parties who cannot in many cases provide informed consent, so laws relating to it can be justified in a society based on voluntary interaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're asserting causality based on very few data points. The US auto industry is still very union-based, and beyond the occasional bailout, seems to be doing well. Moreover, plenty of industries that didn't become dominated by unions also became uncompetitive. You say that "those working for the media are all unionized" but I have no idea what you're talking about. Citation? Unionization does not cure bad management…
I cannot prove causality, but I think common sense dictates here. Everything we know about economics tells us that inhibiting contract liberty in the way that labor laws do in order to give unions monopolistic control over the negotiating power of a company's work force will be economically harmful and an objective review of US economic history validates that. >>The US auto industry is still very union-based, and bey…
> The best argument against unions is thay they violate contract liberty, and thereby inhibit market freedom and increase economic rent seeking.
Freedom of contract is about state interference. Worker's unions are compatible with free markets as much as corporate groups or large companies are. You can't make a logical argument rejecting only one of them.
> any industry in the US that came to be dominated by unions became uncompetitive: the auto industry, US Steel, and the passenger rail service
Except that a lot of the competition from other countries that supposedly leapfrogged them has famously strong unions. So much in fact they're usually used as examples for them. How do you reconcile that?
Also the US car industry isn't even that bad off and neither is steel.
Saying that your argument is limping would be sugar-coating it. If that was truly - as you say - the "best" argument against unions, then... oh well.
" " I noticed on other Squarespace sites that second comment is usually just the domain minus the TLD. I wonder if "cranberry groundhog" means anything in particular. Edit: Guess it's autogenerated? https://cranberry-groundhog-8agy.squarespace.com/
Probably something to use before your IT team sets up the CNAME record.